Forum

Proxim Tsunami wireless bridges, and other vendors as well, boast full duplex on their high speed bridge equipment. I presume that the way they are able to do this is to use one non-overlapping channel for transmit, and another non-overlapping channel for receive, with the channel assignments reversed on the other side.

That about right? Or have I outsmarted myself once again?

Thanks.

Well! but how about the client side. you can nt use the ordinary client wireless module. and how about colocation. you know that there are just 3 nonoverlaping channel so using two will reduce the colocated devices we can have. this way we have only one device not even two. and how about the colisions. you will make the chance of colisions more and you have to redesign all the interframe spacing and timing algortithm too.
but i think if you can solve all these problems you will be a rich man.
your solution is so good in bridges but not in APs.

Anonymous Escribió:

you know that there are just 3 nonoverlaping channel so using two will reduce the colocated devices we can have. this way we have only one device not even two. and how about the colisions. you will make the chance of colisions more and you have to redesign all the interframe spacing and timing algortithm too.

Although channels 1,6, and 11 are touted as non-overlapping, that is only theoretical and in actuality there is some overlap between 1&6, and 6&11. Co-locating 3 three access points to increase your aggregate throughput is actually only resulting in ~1Mbps additional throughput when compared to colocating 2 APs on channels 1 & 11. Using two would reduce costs AND result in less collisions. Although you could try to physically separate 3 colocated APs enough to overcome the actual channel overlap.... I agree that what is beig considered has a different impact for bridges versus APs.